NIMBY: if not your backyard, then whose?
Question (Don’t worry, it’s multiple choice.)
The person who wrote the comment above is:
a) just looking out for their safety
b) a frightened narcissist
c) a bigot
d) a realist
That was the question I posed to a dozen different people after reading this comment on a story about Chicago’s public housing transformation on Monday morning. I was rereading Natalie Moore’s great pieces for WBEZ, reflecting on the past 10 years of the Plan for Transformation, the city’s project to bulldoze and rebuild most of its
public housing.
There are things people will say in comments that they will not say to your face. It’s the wonder (and terror) of
the online world. I read that comment several times over, sometimes feeling outraged and other times sympathetic.
And when I don’t know what I think, I interview. That’s what being a reporter does to you. I called up smart people and said, “What is this?”
NIMBY, they said. NIMBY.
Not in my back yard.
This commenter, this South Shore resident. They don’t like the people moving into their neighborhood. They feel threatened. They feel they’ve worked hard for what they have, not made the poor choices other people have
made. They saved up their money to buy a house and want to enjoy it. They want their home to be their castle, their haven. Safe, quiet, calm.
You can understand that, right? I asked Joe the Cop what he thought, and he said he didn’t feel the comment was classist or racist. He felt like it was expressing a legitimate fear of crime, a fear of being targeted. And from someone who knows crime, I guess I had to hand it to him. I wouldn’t be too excited if crime went up in my neighborhood either.
Other people I asked also had strong reactions. One felt this person was “appalling” and lived in a “bigot’s fantasy land.” Another said this person had some sort of narcissistic personality disorder if they really thought other families who were just trying to make it were fixated on them. A third said NIMBY, and I had to agree.
(For the record, I tried to contact the person who commented, but they did not contact me back.)
The former Robert Taylor Homes. Courtesy of Chicago Tribune.
Here’s the paradox: Concentrated poverty doesn’t work. There is a general sense of agreement about that. It doesn’t work to pack a ton of people into a high-density building all low-income, many on welfare. There are a ton of theories why it doesn’t work, but the main idea is that it doesn’t.
So, we agree it’s good to not have giant high-rises with thousands of families and huge numbers of children. But if we take down those high-rises, people gotta go somewhere.
And while very few people would come out and say they didn’t care if those children ended up in squalor, most of us would hope they had a decent place to live.
Just as long as that decent place to live is not in my back yard.
I called up my friend Shawn who grew up in the massive Robert Taylor Homes. Shawn has described to me how hundreds of kids would wait in line for a chance to play on the one set of swings in the entire project. He has told me how he saw his cousin shot in the back of the head in a stairwell, running away from police. He’s raising two sons and a daughter, and lives just a few blocks from Ickes.
I asked him what he thought of this idea. The projects were gone, I said, and people had to go somewhere, but nobody wanted them where they lived.
More of the same, Shawn said.
“They didn’t care about these people when they were in the buildings,” he said. “They don’t care about ‘em now.”
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
This is a very difficult subject. I live in Roseland, so I have experienced first-hand the changes this transformation has wrought. Not pretty at all. I have felt all of the aforementioned emotions and then some. Some days I am mad as hell because I come home from work to find bags of litter strewn nearby, and see people lounging in or around boarded up homes (and believe me, there are plenty of these in Roseland). Other days, I shake my head in sorrow because I know that I am very lucky, saying to myself, “there but for the Grace of God go I.” I realize that our country’s system is set up so that most people will not move beyond where they are now.
Families moved out of CHA housing developments were set up to fail. They were tossed out without proper support and sent packing to the nearest minority community on the far south and west sides of the city. Of the 20,000 + moved out over the years, only 6,000 or so (and that number is sure to dwindle) will be allowed to return to the mixed-income developments (if, of course, they’re completed at some point). Some days it’s difficult to understand this and feel empathy, etc, especially when you return home to a garage or car that has been broken into (as I have), or you answer your door and a man and his family are looking for work for money and food, but this is the reality. It’s easy for us to sit around and say, “Why don’t they find a job?” But, each year my office is threatened with layoffs, etc. Many of us are just a stone’s throw away from someone saying, “Why don’t you find a job?” Easier said than done in today’s world.
Hi Tayale -
I think your comment and feelings are really appropriate. I imagine it must be hard to see your community and neighborhood change. I really admire the way you are able to deal with those feelings and still have empathy for people who sometimes cause you pain and trouble. I think if voucher programs are going to succeed, we need more people like you who are able to see both sides and be thoughtful but also practical. Great comment.
As a low-income baby boomer who grew up in a working class white ethnic neighborhood – a neighborhood which changed after I went off to college – I cannot fault the writer’s legitimate fears and concerns.
As a low-income baby boomer with desirable attributes, I believe I have an unusual and unheard perspective.
By “desirable attributes” I refer to attributes that many people would desire in a neighbor: I have a college degree (liberal arts), I’ve never used drugs or engaged in crime, I’ve been on the board of my neighborhood association as well as a local food co-op. So I like to think I am not part of what many perceive as ‘the low-income problem.’
On one hand, my neighbors are glad to have me as a neighbor (especially as opposed to, say, a drug addict or criminal). But my neighbors don’t decide whether I can live among them; landlords do – and there are plenty of applicants with far more income than I have. (I pay half my income for rent; landlords typically require an applicant to have income three or four times greater than rent.)
Sure, I would like an opportunity to live in subsidized housing of the type at issue here. But the waiting lists are a mile long and at most times are closed to new applicants: I am on a number of waiting lists but could continue waiting a long time.
So I am in the interesting position of both understanding the perspective of the writer, and also desiring an expanded supply of subsidized housing, mixed-income or otherwise.
In this context, I have tried to distinguish myself from other low-income people, and I see the “problem” – and its solution – in (not) establishing and implementing a non-financial hierarchy of eligibility for subsidized housing. For example, how about giving high school graduates housing preference over dropouts?
In short, I would say, I have a dream, that one day, the ability of our children to live in save, decent neighborhoods, will be based not on the content of their pocketbook, but on the content of their character.
megan-nice article. and good comments by tayale and poorboomer.
i must say, having lived in a number of chicago neighborhoods and now in logan square, i fall into the nimby camp. it’s not that i don’t care about those who are struggling. it’s that after living in east humboldt park (potomac 1/2 block west of washtenaw) for three years in the late nineties (and still having friends there), i saw the destructive effects that concentrated low-income housing has on not only middle-income neighbors, but even the low-income residents.
it was overrun by drug and gang violence, trash everywhere, unsupervised small chilren playing in the street until midnight…
there were plenty of low-income residents who were good people, but far too many who weren’t.
the main focus should no just be what to do to house low income people, but how to prevent this cycle from repeating itself over and over and over…and over.
as i’ve responded in comments to another of your thoughtful articles, people have to stop having kids when they’re not ready to be parents. otherwise, their kids have absolutely no chance of making it, of becoming productive citizens.
apologies for the redundancy, but for those who weren’t privy to previous posts, here’s a copy:
hi megan,
nice article on poverty in the city, with lots of good background and data. i very much appreciate your desire to help the less fortunate among us. i share that concern, but have become much more practical, if a bit cynical, after living in a number of impoverished (varying degrees) neighborhoods in chicago (humboldt park, garfield park, little village/north lawndale, and now logan square, not very impoverished where i live).
One of the most important ways to address poverty and crime? For communities and individuals to address the issue of people having kids before they are ready, before they have gotten an education or job. If a person is not able to take care of himself/herself, there is little chance that they will have the means, stability, or maturity to provide a child with a reasonable chance of escaping poverty. When it’s the norm in some communities for young people to have kids before they’re even able to take care of themselves, there’s little chance that kids will have a stable, supportive environment and get the basic preparation and support for succeeding in school. Unless this changes, there’s little chance that both the schools and communities will ever improve.
Yes, school reform is needed to address the sometimes appallingly poor levels of school achievement. But the blame needs to extend past the schools to the effect of community and parents. Good teachers are critical, but I think that the community and parents play an equal if not larger role. Unless the core issues of poverty, crime, and community and family stability are addressed, no amount of money spent or committed teachers will solve the problem of poor quality education.”
Hi Mark – great comments. Thanks for reading.
Maybe I wasn’t entirely clear. I wasn’t saying we should spend more money. I think that poverty is very complex, just as you noted. There are a lot of great programs that help families escape the cycle of poverty – for instance, parenting classes for those who become parents young, or job training programs so parents can provide better for their kids. Or alcohol treatment. Or homelessness prevention. Or birth control or sex education.
These things are hard to fix, but we have a lot of great social workers who are dedicated to helping. But if a problem is as big as complex as you and I think it is, we can’t pretend that these services are “discretionary.” I’m not suggesting we throw more money at the problem – I’m suggesting we stop cutting money from the people and programs that are trying to help.
Some of the issues of poverty are individual. People have kids too early. People get addicted to drugs or alcohol. People don’t pursue the education they need to succeed.
But some of the issues are structural. Take, for example, the mental health care system. There used to be about 25 public mental health clinics over the city, doing great work. Now, there’s about four, and even those are being cut. Now the parents that had kids too young and need help not turning to abuse or alcohol to cope with their choices don’t have it. And it’s because we are waiting until the last minute and pretending mental health care is optional. If we want to eliminate poverty, it’s not.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments. I really appreciate readers like you who read, think and express their thoughts!
Posted on September 30, 2009 9:58 PM
Reply
mark_in_chicago said:
Hi Megan,
Wow, thanks for a great, comprehensive, nuanced response. When much of the “debate” is sound-bite, tweet, or uninformed, emotional, vitriolic rant, an informed, respectful response is very refreshing.
yes, there are many factors that lead to poverty, and there are no “magic bullet” (no pun intended with the violence tied to poverty) solutions. there must be a comprehensive look at everything that leads to poverty and how to solve it. a holistic approach is vital.
we need to take a look at all efforts being made and ensure the maximum return on investment (both monetary and human) so the time and money spent do the maximum good, and address not just the symptoms (which will thus continue) but get to the root causes, and result in real improvement through prevention. should more, the same, or less money be spent on programs? my first thought is like yours: don’t increase spending, but certainly don’t cut it either. but let’s look at the whole system and decide what’s appropriate, what really works, and how to really solve some of the problems so poverty and the social services systems are not perpetual realities.
again, i think the by far the most important step that can be taken to reduce poverty and violence, and dependence on government and social services, is for unready mothers to stop having children. how can that best be addressed? i’m not sure. but for all the wonderful people who are working to reduce poverty, it must be one of the highest priorities rather than an afterthought. otherwise, i don’t believe there will ever be real improvement.
you’re right too that there needs to be structural change as well. a prime example is the criminal justice system that criminalizes drug sales and decimates communities where sales are concentrated. some will say that nobody forces people to sell drugs and that putting dealers in jail gets them off the street, which is good, and just.
i disagree. if there’s a demand for drugs, there will always be a supply. for those who want tough drug laws, penalties should be every bit as harsh for those who buy and consume drugs as for those who sell them. that would be just. and might also reduce the demand, and thus reduce the dealing.
however, it seems that it would be much more productive to treat drugs as a health/mental health issue, and possibly legalize sales. this would largely decriminalize sales and hopefully greatly reduce demand, by addressing the users. and bring in income for drug-use prevention and rehabilitation, pregnancy prevention/family planning, and other programs that are really needed.
if i had been born in garfield park, to an unready mother, in a terrible community, with little to no education (due to the parents and community as much as the schools), i almost certainly would have been on the street selling drugs. there are few other options. for those who say kids in the ghetto need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, i say it’s completely unrealistic.
but putting sellers in jail means a further fracturing of the almost non-existent family structure, turning a person with at least some potential into a lifelong criminal (almost no rehabilitation goes on in prisons any more; for profit prisons have a vested interest in recidivism, not rehabilitation), and spending $30-$50,000 a year on incarceration.
and, as you note, improving the mental health care system is another large, structural challenge.
i must reiterate, unready mothers not having kids until they’re ready can address most of these issues by preventing children from becoming products of welfare, prisons, or mental health facilities. there are many roots to poverty, but i think this is the most important, and the most important means to any real solution.
regards,
mark
ps-in another post, i mentioned the importance of spending charitable money wisely by selecting groups that were doing the most with every dollar they receive, because, some well-intentioned groups don’t produce much in the way of real results. i wasn’t insinuating that heartland alliance is undeserving. i think they do really good work. just noting the importance in not wasting limited resources when trying to do good. charity navigator is a great source of info (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8799)
Hi Mark – I always enjoy your thoughtful comments.
I agree that having children too young is a huge factor in poverty. What do you think we can do to solve it?
Excellent post Megan, and thanks for the link. I think calling it “NIMBY” is too simplistic, and I talk more about it in this post.
Great post Megan. I honestly dont think theres a real solution to this issue especially when you want to try to make both sides happy. I think one thing we can no longer do is shove everyone off into a public housing ghetto. As much as I dont like government interference, I think they should hold people who are part of the public housing program more accountable as they should with all programs. I dont think that will solve all the issues but its a start.